I think you're missing the point. He's not wearing it, it happens to have been put on him. Wearing something is a voluntary act.
If you passed out at a party and woke up in panties, are you wearing them, or did someone put them on you?
Of course you're wearing them. Really? That's where you're going to try to take this?
1. To carry or bear upon the person; to bear upon one's self,
as an article of clothing, decoration, warfare, bondage,
etc.; to have appendant to one's body; to have on; as, to
wear a coat; to wear a shackle.
[1913 Webster]
Seriously, you're going to argue that because you didn't, yourself, put the armor on, that you are not wearing it? That honestly has to be the farthest logical stretch I have ever seen someone try to make in a semantics debate.
Sorcerer: Ok I cast Magic Missile. He takes 4 points of damage.
GM: Hold on, you're wearing a large steel shield, you need to roll for spell failure.
Sorcerer: oh, no, it's cool. I just have strapped on, I'm not using it this turn, so that rule doesn't apply to me right now. All the wording in spell failure relates to "wearing" armor, but it only talks about "using" a shield, so since I'm not using it, it doesn't apply!This is perfectly acceptable at your table, correct?
To strip a Druid of his abilities for being forced into metal armor or tricked into using a shield containing metal is ridiculous.
I think RAW is taken WAY too far here.
I do agree with Dire Mongoose that, if a Paladin fails his extra save at +2 for resisting the Domination and killing an innocent, he should have to atone. I'll possibly roll with that, but still, this makes neutering the divine classes WAY too easy for highly intelligent adversaries with Domination and a slew of other compulsion abilities.
Let's say the party is comprised entirely of divine classes, and they are outnumbered. Wouldn't it be the optimal strategy in every situation to simply dominate them all and have them lose their divine power? The 'good guys' would have lost the eternal war long ago, if this is the case.
Normally, when a single strategy stands above the rest so obviously, there is a flaw in the logic. I'd say this is one of those occasions.
As a side note, I have to ask ... does this go both ways?
If you Dominate an evil cleric to do nice things, does he lose his abilities?
The use of a comma and not a semi-colon is distinctive. A comma links the two pieces together, so that willfully does in fact apply to the second statement. A semi-colon is more disjunctive and would imply that willfully applied to the first portion but not the second.
There is grammatical support for this interpretation.
It is also a common interpretation used by the legal system when interpreting documents.
For that, I would say the writer intent is actually quite clear in that willfully does modify the next portion of the statement as well.
I would disagree, as in the case of your argument, the "willfully" clause would come before the entire statement. To substantiate your claim, the line would have to be written: "A paladin who willfully ceases to be lawful good, or who commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features."
The placing of the "willfully" in the second clause instead of the first to me serves to reinforce that particular caveat applies ONLY to that clause of the statement, instead of the statement as a whole.
And besides, it doesn't matter. A paladin who commits cold-blooded murder immediately ceases to be lawful good anyway, and that part is before the willful clause anyway.
To strip a Druid of his abilities for being forced into metal armor or tricked into using a shield containing metal is ridiculous.
I think RAW is taken WAY too far here.
It's FINE that you thing it's wrong, and it's FINE that you would house rule it, but to argue that it is not rules as written is the part where I have to step in and say "No." I take no issue with you saying that it doesn't work in your game, or that you as a DM would not allow it, but claiming it is not RAW is false.
I do agree with Dire Mongoose that, if a Paladin fails his extra save at +2 for resisting the Domination and killing an innocent, he should have to atone. I'll possibly roll with that, but still, this makes neutering the divine classes WAY too easy for highly intelligent adversaries with Domination and a slew of other compulsion abilities.
I actually personally consider this risk a balancing factor for the power and flexibility granted to divine spellcasters, but that's my opinion.
As a side note, I have to ask ... does this go both ways?If you Dominate an evil cleric to do nice things, does he lose his abilities?
Hmmmm. It's a little bit trickier of a question, it's a lot easier to get yourself dirty then clean. Unfortunately, one evil act can and does tarnish a life spent in service to good, but it takes a lot more than giving 500 gold to an orphanage to make up for a life spent in service to evil. However, if we're talking Blackguard, then yeah, same deal, piece of cake.
To strip a Druid of his abilities for being forced into metal armor or tricked into using a shield containing metal is ridiculous.
I think RAW is taken WAY too far here.
It's FINE that you thing it's wrong, and it's FINE that you would house rule it, but to argue that it is not rules as written is the part where I have to step in and say "No." I take no issue with you saying that it doesn't work in your game, or that you as a DM would not allow it, but claiming it is not RAW is false.
By RAW taken way too far here, I mean that anyone with even a bit of sense would rule that an unconscious Druid PUT into metal armor is not wearing it, it's just on him.
The spirit of the rule is to prevent Druids from willfully using metal armor, and to rules lawyer that into something to exploit is shameful. It can and will ruin an entire night of gaming.
I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I just don't buy it.
Any highly intelligent evil adversary could neuter those classes in seconds under those conditions.
I'm going to be semantic for a moment.
who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conductFrom the Paladin section you've quoted earlier. These are two separate clauses, denoted by the two nouns.
1. One who willfully commits an evil act, OR
2. One who violates the code of conduct.Notice that "willfully" is not in both clauses. Therefore, "willfully" plays no part in the section of "violating the code of conduct." If it was intended to be applicable to both, it would read:
"who willfully commits an evil act or violates the code of conduct"
The difference is subtle, but very distinct. If the writers decided to be more clear in the writing, "willfully" would be inserted before "violates." As written, "willfully" does not modify the second clause.
Actually, that is inaccurate. The proper line is, "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features [. . .]"
The use of a comma and not a semi-colon is distinctive. A comma links the two pieces together, so that willfully does in fact apply to the second statement. A semi-colon is more disjunctive and would imply that willfully applied to the first portion but not the second.
There is grammatical support for this interpretation.
It is also a common interpretation used by the legal system when interpreting documents.
For that, I would say the writer intent is actually quite clear in that willfully does modify the next portion of the statement as well.
Oh god, it's a grammar fight.
OK, so the sentence in question is as follows:
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features" (thanks for the [.b] tags, those will be useful in a minute.
So we have three clauses separated by commas with the final one joined by or. These are three completely separate clauses grammatically then. There are three conditions that will cause a paladin to lose his powers:
(1) He ceases to be lawful good,
(2) He willfully commits an evil act, or
(3) He violates the code of conduct.
The willfully very explicitly only applies to the middle of those three clauses. If the grammatic intent had been for it to apply to the second two, then you would have two clauses joined together by a conjunction, with the second made of the second and third clauses above, also joined by a conjunction, like so:
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good or who willfully commits an evil act or violates the code of conduct..."
See how it is two clauses, each introduced by "who..." and joined by an "or" in between? Then the second clause is further split, but as there is no "who..." the willfully applies to the whole clause?
Each time there is a comma-who... construction, it's a new clause. Any adverb in that new clause modifies only that clause, which ends at a new comma-who...
Thus, "willfully" applies only to "who willfully commits an evil act."
And again, as has been said before, this is the rules forum, where we consider what the rules imply. Any homerules are fine, but those are homerules and not up for discussion here.
As a final point, the spell explicitly says that it can be used to force enemies to don cursed items. Let's look at some cursed items:
The Necklace of strangulation which deals 6 damage per round until dead and can only be removed by wish, limited wish, or miracle.
The Poisonous Cloak which deals 4d6 Con damage with a 26 Fort save.
The Scarab of Death which kills with a DC 25 reflex save or deals 3d6 damage on a successful save.
These are NASTY and any can be forced upon an enemy with a 1st level spell. There are also cursed items which you can't drop and which require a painful toll from you to function. Like permanent Con drain. Or killing an innocent once a month, both examples from Paizo. Let's hand the Paladin a cursed sword of kill one innocent once per month with a spell which forces him to use it. In order to use it he has to kill an innocent. Woops, by by Paladinhood with a 1st level spell.
And just so that everyone is clear, all of this horrible dominate person terror OH NO MY PALADIN IS GOING TO LOSE HIS POWERS YOU ARE A BADWRONGFUN DM FOR DOING THIS, dominate person can be stopped by a first level spell which paladins and clerics get. It's called Protection from Evil. It stops all attempts at possession, and gives new saves against ongoing possessions to suppress them.
And yes, this does go both ways. The good party can dominate the anti-paladin and force him to violate his code and cost him his class abilities as well.
And lastly, there is a HUGE difference between a paladin or cleric losing their class and a druid using a metal shield. The druid loses wild shape and casting for 24 hours. That hurts. Yeah. A lot. It's a great strategy for hurting druids, if your 1st level spell can get past their really good will save. However, they are still a 3/4 BAB class with a pet. They aren't exactly totally down for the count.
The spirit of the rule is to prevent Druids from willfully using metal armor, and to rules lawyer that into something to exploit is shameful.
Here I thought it was to give druids a unique drawback when they were probably the strongest class in the game, and it's an artifact of that. (As you could make an excellent argument that they were in 3.0 and 3.5.)
To strip a Druid of his abilities for being forced into metal armor or tricked into using a shield containing metal is ridiculous.
I think RAW is taken WAY too far here.
It's FINE that you thing it's wrong, and it's FINE that you would house rule it, but to argue that it is not rules as written is the part where I have to step in and say "No." I take no issue with you saying that it doesn't work in your game, or that you as a DM would not allow it, but claiming it is not RAW is false.
By RAW taken way too far here, I mean that anyone with even a bit of sense would rule that an unconscious Druid PUT into metal armor is not wearing it, it's just on him.
The spirit of the rule is to prevent Druids from willfully using metal armor, and to rules lawyer that into something to exploit is shameful. It can and will ruin an entire night of gaming.
Then that is your style of gaming, and feel free to houserule it otherwise.
On the other hand, its what the rules say, and if the baddies want to knock the druid unconscious, get him alone long enough to put a suit of armor on him, and then let him go with the only penalty that he loses his spells and Supernaturals for 24 hours, then those seems like some pretty amazingly conscientious and non-bloodthirsty baddies to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I feel forcing a metal shield or armor on a Druid to make him lose his abilities is a House Rule.
I think many of you have too much time on your hands to sit around and come up with new ways to exploit the shortcomings of the way the rules are written. It should never come to that.
To strip a Druid of his abilities for being forced into metal armor or tricked into using a shield containing metal is ridiculous.
I think RAW is taken WAY too far here.
It's FINE that you thing it's wrong, and it's FINE that you would house rule it, but to argue that it is not rules as written is the part where I have to step in and say "No." I take no issue with you saying that it doesn't work in your game, or that you as a DM would not allow it, but claiming it is not RAW is false.
By RAW taken way too far here, I mean that anyone with even a bit of sense would rule that an unconscious Druid PUT into metal armor is not wearing it, it's just on him.
The spirit of the rule is to prevent Druids from willfully using metal armor, and to rules lawyer that into something to exploit is shameful. It can and will ruin an entire night of gaming.
It's a situation easily rectified in many ways.
1) Make the Druid a follower of Gorum (Gods and Magic pg 17: "Druids can wear Metal armor, though they cannot cast spells while doing so, [... wild shape info ...]")
2) Wild Shape, Eschew Materials, Natural Spell. Don't pick a Gorilla?
3) Locking Gauntlet. If you have a locking gauntlet with a weapon, and a heavy shield, you cannot drop what you are holding. This means that you are physically unable to accept the shield, and the spell fails.
There are just a few of the myriad ways to prevent this from working.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I feel forcing a metal shield or armor on a Druid to make him lose his abilities is a House Rule.
I think many of you have too much time on your hands to sit around and come up with new ways to exploit the shortcomings of the way the rules are written. It should never come to that.
The spell is specifically designed to make people use things which it is not in their best interest to use. It even explicitly says that it can be used for cursed items. A metal shield is essentially a cursed item for a druid.
It's not an exploit, it is a clever use of a spell which necessitates the creation of clever uses in order to make it effective, and you are casting against someone with good will saves who can and will smack you in the face when you try to cast it in melee range anyways. If a bard can go up against all that and still get through the druid's defenses, then more power to him. Let him have his moment.
EDIT: Because those are the rules of the game!! The druid knew it going in and didn't prepare. You are in a world of magic, you can turn into animals, you have a loyal animal companion, and you have access to all of an incredibly powerful spell list. The sword cuts both ways, though.
It's not an exploit, it is a clever use of a spell which necessitates the creation of clever uses in order to make it effective, and you are casting against someone with good will saves who can and will smack you in the face when you try to cast it in melee range anyways. If a bard can go up against all that and still get through the druid's defenses, then more power to him. Let him have his moment.
I agree with that, too.
That this seems like an exploit or rules lawyering to some people is a little ridiculous to me, as in: "Are these people serious? I think they're putting me on and the humor isn't coming across in text."
It's a niche spell at best, especially for a spontaneous caster.
"A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter."
Totally intended as being willfully wearing. Having it on against one's will is not wearing it or using it.
Definitely exploitative.
*shrug*
You should feel guilty, because you are a good person, and the curse of a truly good person is to always wonder if you could have done more. But a god who actually withdraws his blessing from someone who is both genuinely penitent and literally had no control over the evil action he was forced to take is frankly just being a dick, not to mention...If a holy man or woman were tricked or forced into heresy in any story, movie, book or legend, they would suffer a crisis of faith, and lose favor with their divine source.
Some may think that if a Paladin were tricked or enchanted into killing innocents, burning down a LG temple and putting a demon on the throne, they'd just say "well I was dominated, so it doesn't count. I don't feel guilty at all."
No, buddy... your Will was too weak (you failed your save), and you gave in to the compulsion to be the puppet of evil. You SHOULD feel guilty, and you SHOULD fall from grace.Then, of course, they have to recover their faith through trials or some such (which is atonement). This is plot, and story, and denying this is denying the epic nature of stories of faith... which is funny for me to say as a card carrying atheist.
The Paladin, Cleric and Druid are all subject to this paradigm.
If a DM prevents this for the sake of game balance or enjoyment of the PCs, that's house-rules. Don't argue to deny it, because you're just ... well, you're in denial.
Houserules aren't bad, but they disagree with the RAW and RAI... though RAW and RAI are not the be-all and end-all to a successful and enjoyable game.
He wasn't genuinely penitent when he did the evil deeds, because his weak will let him submit to the power of evil. This is what the failed saving throw represents.
This is also why, when casting Atonement, the divine character doesn't have to jump through all those hoops.READ HERE
Do a search on the words...
Of course he was penitent when he was under the effects of the spell. He was beating on the glass of his mind, seeing his hands commit terrible deeds, and unable to stop them. That's what being dominated means. It's why you get a second save at a +4 bonus when ordered to do something 'against your nature'. (Admittedly, it's rather unlikely that a Paladin could whiff both saves, but I digress.)
If the Paladin is knocked out in battle, thus failing to stop St. Mary Sue's Orphanage for Innocent Victims and Adorable Puppy Dogs from being burned down by Count Darkwizard von Evulz, he doesn't fall. He doesn't fall if he's trapped in a Forcecage he can't manage to get out of in time, or if he was magically put to sleep. He's not gonna feel good about it by any stretch of the imagination, but no sane DM would take the paladin's powers away over that. Being dominated is no different.
I have at no point claimed that the rules agreed with me on that point. It is of course correct that an Atonement spell is required, as I acknowledged. The main body of my post was my own flavor interpretation to reconcile my view with that mechanic--that the Atonement was to resolve the Paladin's own guilt, and not the deity's anger.
The self-admitted house rule I included about leaving out the actual Atonement spell altogether was more an excuse for a Tengen Toppa Gurren Laggan reference than anything else.
All that said: though I find the druidic aversion to metal mildly silly, I have no objection to this usage of Beguiling Gift, which is highly unlikely to work, anyway. I do object to the idea of the 'metall clause' triggering because there's a shard of iron hidden somewhere in the ironwood shield someone offers the druid. And while technically could make the druid fall by Dominating him into teaching you Druidic, I imagine the Linguistics check to learn the language in a mere 20 days or less is pretty high.
It's not an exploit, it is a clever use of a spell which necessitates the creation of clever uses in order to make it effective, and you are casting against someone with good will saves who can and will smack you in the face when you try to cast it in melee range anyways. If a bard can go up against all that and still get through the druid's defenses, then more power to him. Let him have his moment.
I agree with that, too.
That this seems like an exploit or rules lawyering to some people is a little ridiculous to me, as in: "Are these people serious? I think they're putting me on and the humor isn't coming across in text."
It's a niche spell at best, especially for a spontaneous caster.
Well to expand upon this further, it is called "beguiling gift." It is a spell designed for trickster types, so frankly, it makes sense to come up with subtle, tricky ways to use it. Not everything in D&D/Pathfinder comes down to a straight fight. Schools like enchantment and illusion are built for characters who like to manipulate things, rather than go for the straight-up most powerful builds. Personally, I like that, and I'd think it was hilarious if a player in one of my games pulled this. I'd also be slightly annoyed, but it's also part of the GM's job to roll with what his players throw at him.
...You should feel guilty, because you are a good person, and the curse of a truly good person is to always wonder if you could have done more. But a god who actually withdraws his blessing from someone who is both genuinely penitent and literally had no control over the evil action he was forced to take is frankly just being a dick, not to mention...If a holy man or woman were tricked or forced into heresy in any story, movie, book or legend, they would suffer a crisis of faith, and lose favor with their divine source.
Some may think that if a Paladin were tricked or enchanted into killing innocents, burning down a LG temple and putting a demon on the throne, they'd just say "well I was dominated, so it doesn't count. I don't feel guilty at all."
No, buddy... your Will was too weak (you failed your save), and you gave in to the compulsion to be the puppet of evil. You SHOULD feel guilty, and you SHOULD fall from grace.Then, of course, they have to recover their faith through trials or some such (which is atonement). This is plot, and story, and denying this is denying the epic nature of stories of faith... which is funny for me to say as a card carrying atheist.
The Paladin, Cleric and Druid are all subject to this paradigm.
If a DM prevents this for the sake of game balance or enjoyment of the PCs, that's house-rules. Don't argue to deny it, because you're just ... well, you're in denial.
Houserules aren't bad, but they disagree with the RAW and RAI... though RAW and RAI are not the be-all and end-all to a successful and enjoyable game.
He wasn't genuinely penitent when he did the evil deeds, because his weak will let him submit to the power of evil. This is what the failed saving throw represents.
This is also why, when casting Atonement, the divine character doesn't have to jump through all those hoops.READ HERE
Do a
The meaningful difference to me is in the fact that while the unconscious paladin and the force caged paladin will feel terrible that they weren't quite good enough to save the orphanage in time, the dominated paladin did everything with his own hands. He wasn't in control of them at the time, but it was his hands who strangled those children. It was his hands who painted a target of blood on the wall and played a game of screaming-baby-darts. It was his hands who felt the life slipping away from the innocents beneath them. His hands which felt bones snap and blood flow. It was his eyes that the tearful children looked to for explanation, and his sword which provided only pain and death.
THAT is the difference, and even if you can say "well, it wasn't me, it was magic" I think there is a huge gap between those two. I live a firefighter and I can tell you that the weight of the people who died in traffic accidents while waiting for the ambulance to get there is extremely heavy on his shoulders. But it is nothing compared to the weight on the shoulders of the person who fell asleep at the wheel and caused the accident.
If you want to houserule differently because the flavor just seems wrong to you, then do so. In fact, I insist that you do so. The game doesn't work if it doesn't feel real (as silly as that sounds in a fantasy context. For me, my houserule is that a paladin's power isn't actually from a divine being, but is self-generating from the paladin's own personal reserve of righteousness. He believes so hard that the world should be a better place than it is that the world actually stands up and listens, and he can change it that little bit. For that paladin, breaking his code while dominated would be devastating as all of that righteousness burns away until he can atone. So for me, the flavor only makes sense this way.
OK... so everyone who thinks that a first-level spell can strip a divinely-empowered PC of his/her abilities... then you will happily congratulate a GM when he/she uses the same -- or another -- unintended RAW loophole on your PC. 'Cause the GM isn't being an a**h*le, just "clever and resourceful."
There are 1st level spells which effectively lead to dead characters. Shocking Grasp, Sleep, or Color Spray have the potential to do more than "strip you of your powers". Being dead is a significantly bigger penalty than having to cast Atonement. Never mind that this very spell could also make someone drink a potion vial full of deadly poison... also more significant than stripping them of powers.
|
I would allow this to work, especially since even though it's clever, it's unlikely to work.
It's a 1st level spell that offers a Will save, versus a class that has a good Will save progression and Wisdom as one of it's prime stats. So, the Druid probably saves, then concentrates on killing you good and dead.
It has a full round casting time,with verbal and somatic components, so if the Druid sees it coming it isn't likely to work. Even if you cast it Silent and Still, I'd still grant a Perception check to notice that look of concentration on your face. Plus, Perception is a Wisdom-based Class skill, so the Druid is likely to have quite a decent check (although if your character is using Bluff to appear innocuous, I'd substitute an opposed Sense Motive check that you're more likely to win). Oh, and your Bard can't use Silent Spell (although a Witch could), so he's going to hear a round of chanting going on. He could attack you to disrupt the spell, but if he makes a Spellcraft check and realizes what you're casting, he can just move away from you...the spell has a 5 foot range.
Yes, it's clever, and it might work, but I'd hardly call it likely.
But the Paladin didn't cause the accident. The Paladin isn't the guy who ran down the pedestrian. He's the car that guy was driving. Certainly, he ought to feel terrible about it, and someone who was able to dismiss it quite so blasely having experienced would raise some questions about their moral fiber. And certainly, that guilt could interfere with his powers to the point that an Atonement spell is needed; I'll more than readily accept that necessity as a player, provided the 'free' version is available for such situations.
I realize I'm pretty much arguing semantics. I just object to the assertion to the idea that the Paladin absolutely should fall from grace for a situation in which he is as much a victim as the others. To (hesitantly) use a strong analogy, being dominated like that is having your mind raped. And when it comes to rape, the blame is always on the rapist, not the victim.
But the Paladin didn't cause the accident. The Paladin isn't the guy who ran down the pedestrian. He's the car that guy was driving. Certainly, he ought to feel terrible about it, and someone who was able to dismiss it quite so blasely having experienced would raise some questions about their moral fiber. And certainly, that guilt could interfere with his powers to the point that an Atonement spell is needed; I'll more than readily accept that necessity as a player, provided the 'free' version is available for such situations.
I realize I'm pretty much arguing semantics. I just object to the assertion to the idea that the Paladin absolutely should fall from grace for a situation in which he is as much a victim as the others. To (hesitantly) use a strong analogy, being dominated like that is having your mind raped. And when it comes to rape, the blame is always on the rapist, not the victim.
In the case of Dominate, I'm not 100% convinced either way. But this is about a Compulsion, like a Suggestion spell, or the 1st level Bard spell in question. For these, there is no "mind trapped in a jar" ... the target's mind itself submits to the Will of the caster.
With the druid armour question, it's not clear why metal armour has a lasting impact on druid powers. Is it because the druid willingly putting on an item made of metal torn from the earth offends the spirits of nature? (And, if so, are the spirits of nature sophisticated enough to understand if it wasn't really voluntary?) Or is it something to do with metal disrupting the druid's spiritual energies?
If you put chainmail on an unconscious wizard, and he woke up, he'd have an arcane spell failure. Not because he's offended the spirits of magic; the armour just makes it harder to use his magical powers. The druidic metal 24 hour curse might be seen as working the same way.
How about this: a high level wizard uses a permanent illusion to trick a druid into thinking a +3 metal armour is made of dragonhide. The druid puts it on. Should he be allowed to continue benefiting from it as long as he doesn't realise the truth? Or lose his spellcasting powers, maybe without even realising why? This is either a cunning way to neutralise a druid, or a cunning way to help your friendly druid overcome his restrictions. Which?
|
|
Re: the uses/carries thing...
It does say in the PRD that the same happens when someone even WEARS armor, so just give them armor instead!
Obviously a lot less practical, but for sure undeniably valid from a RAW standpoint :P
He can't don it in one round and the spell has a duration of one round.
----
A cheesy way to avoid the problem if the druid has wild shape
Donning a shield is a movement action, wildshaping a standard one.
The druid can do his standard and movement action in the order he prefer.
So:
- he accept the offered item in the caster turn.
- as a standard action in his turn he wildshape in something that can't use shields.
- now he has to use his movement action to don the shield but he can't. The spell fail.
Extremely cheesy but in line with some other spell effect, like Terrible Remorse where if you fail the ST you have to harm yourself but you don't consume any action doing that.
We often used to carry a spare metal helmet around to jam on the heads of any unsuspecting enemy druids. It's kinda cheese, but an effective way of neutralizing druids with minimal effort! From a flavour point of view the metal armour thing is cool, but as a game mechanic it's way too easy to exploit (especialy if one is a metagaming f**k :P)
|
|
I wouldn't allow it, for the same reason that I don't allow people to dominate clerics into acts of heresy: I don't think the gods are that dumb.
I think if you handed a druid a metal shield and he equipped it (and I agree that beguiling gift would cause him to use it in the sense of equipping it), then it only becomes an issue once he regains free will. If he doesn't drop the shield at the first opportunity, then he's in violation, but I don't think he can be held responsible for choices he was compelled to make by magic.
The rules (and common sense) say exactly the opposite.
The rules I quoted above, both in their class descriptions and in the atonement spell.
Common sense has also been argued above. If you are a paladin and somebody dominates you and you fail the save, then they send you to slaughter some orphans, you will still feel guilt for that. You will still feel responsible. Their blood and the stain of the sin are still on your hands. It is easier to be washed clean, but you still must be washed.
The problem, as always, is that the rule is very generic.
A compulsion can go from a suggestion (were you if you fail the ST you try to follow it as long as it is reasonable)) to a domination (where you get a extra ST if it is against your ethics) to this spell that make you do a simple act without any extra benefit if it is against your ethics.
This spell is a level 1 spell, not level 4 or more.
If it can strip someone of most of his class powers for a day it is way overpowered.
"But it is only level 1, the ST is easy." heighten spell exist exactly to bypass that limit.
"Here high level druid BEEG, take this shield" .... "Ok, the adventure is over, who is next? I have a flask of vitriolic acid to drink for the next spellcaster we meet. No speaking after drinking it."
The RP concept of the spell is nice, but the actual effect in game is excessive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suppose for a moment that you are Iomedae. Your champion on the material plane proves himself so weak as to not only lose to his adversary, but become a pawn of that adversary.Would you seriously not be mad at that weakness? Side note, as has repeatedly been said, why would there be a specific bit of text in Atonement to deal with exactly this scenario?
And by that logic, merely Dominating a Paladin is enough to strip him of his class features?
Quite the stretch.
No, you should force him to give the finger to the ruler of the kingdom too. ;D
|
|
Hmmmm. It's a little bit trickier of a question, it's a lot easier to get yourself dirty then clean. Unfortunately, one evil act can and does tarnish a life spent in service to good, but it takes a lot more than giving 500 gold to an orphanage to make up for a life spent in service to evil.
As a side note, I have to ask ... does this go both ways?If you Dominate an evil cleric to do nice things, does he lose his abilities?
Why? He is grossly violating the code of conduct required by his god. So away with his clerical powers.
More power to the Oracle. No code of conduct for her.
|
|
If you go back to prior versions of the game you will see that unwilling acts have ALWAYS 'counted' as violations. Indeed, in 1st edition AD&D the Atonement spell worked ONLY if the violation had been compelled or unintentional.
How can this be? Some people seem to be trying to apply 'reason' rather than 'faith'. Think about real world religions. A couple of weeks ago there were reports about a Buddhist nun in Nepal who was raped... and therefor declared no longer a nun. Does this make sense from a rationale point of view? No, she did nothing wrong. However, from the standpoint of religious faith? It is straightforward... only virgins can be nuns. Their intent or choice has nothing to do with it.
Does a muslim tricked into drinking alchohol NOT have to pray for forgiveness? Is a Jew who unwittingly eats pork any less 'unclean' until purified? According to their religious tenants, NO.
This seems to me the logic behind the way the rules are written... any violation of the religious codes leaves the character 'tainted' (either in view of their god or the character themself... I'd think a truly devout character would be appalled at the idea of trying to commune with their god/draw on powers from the god before cleansing themselves) until they have purified themselves through prayer, atonement, et cetera.
Now, it seems likely that when 'Beguiling Gift' was written this possible use was overlooked. As such, it would make sense to 'import' the relevant rules from 'Dominate Person'. That is, since using the metal shield would be against their nature, the Druid would get a second save at +2 bonus to immediately drop it rather than equipping it. Logically, it shouldn't be easier to force a Druid to violate their beliefs with a 1st level spell than it is with a 4th level spell. In this view, 'Beguiling Gift' is essentially a version of 'Dominate Person' constrained to one specific action (i.e. 'use this').
Yes it would work, there is only situation i would not let it work (in a home game) and that is if there was a druid in your party (i want to avoid PvP as much as possible) but i would be sure to let you know beforehand.
|
|
Now, it seems likely that when 'Beguiling Gift' was written this possible use was overlooked. As such, it would make sense to 'import' the relevant rules from 'Dominate Person'. That is, since using the metal shield would be against their nature, the Druid would get a second save at +2 bonus to immediately drop it rather than equipping it. Logically, it shouldn't be easier to force a Druid to violate their beliefs with a 1st level spell than it is with a 4th level spell. In this view, 'Beguiling Gift' is essentially a version of 'Dominate Person' constrained to one specific action (i.e. 'use this').
Reasonable, at least it put it on par with similar spells.
On the other hand, as soon as a cleric or paladin is dominated get him or her to denounce his /her god.
Instant removal of most of his capabilities if he don't save.
Yes it would work, there is only situation i would not let it work (in a home game) and that is if there was a druid in your party (i want to avoid PvP as much as possible) but i would be sure to let you know beforehand.
So your players can do it to NPC but the NPC can't do it to them?
If the workings of the class are secret then such things should be stated up front, and in that case the player should be allowed to make a knowledge check assuming he has ranks in the correct area.I think this is extremely clever, and would allow it. However, I would first ask the player how his character knows that handing the druid a metal shield is going to be crippling to him.
I don't think everyone just happens to know everything about other player classes just because. Druid rites are secret, just like their language.
If the player could not provide a reason to do so IN CHARACTER, I would disallow it. His character should never have come to the conclusion that handing a threat something that will provide them more defense will make them weaker. That's my only caveat.
Knowledge (religion) check, then? What DC? Why does [insert any given character] happen to know this one particular tidbit?
Understand that I'm not ragging on the OP, and I have been guilty of making this sort of leap in-game myself, but ultimately it's metagaming.
Not really. It depends on the GM's perception of how rare classes are among other things. Everyone knows cleric cast spells as an example so it would be up to the GM to decide which parts of a class are common knowledge, and which parts are not.
|
|
No I think he meant he won't allow one player to do it to another player. PVP.
If he remove the possibility when there is a druid in the party he remove the possibility from players and NPC.
I suspect he will do the same about using domination to make someone lose his clerical powers. So the question.
If the player can do something they should not be immune from the same thing (the diplomacy skill is an exception and even for that some use of it by NPC against PC should be possible as long as it don't remove the player control).
Not really. It depends on the GM's perception of how rare classes are among other things. Everyone knows cleric cast spells as an example so it would be up to the GM to decide which parts of a class are common knowledge, and which parts are not.
Even that is debatable. The guy that live in the church at the corner is a priest. That don't necessarily mean it is a member of a class capable of casting divine spells.
Pre-Pathfinder supplements had plenty of churches where the priest was a commoner or expert. I don't recall any Pathfinder module or supplement with one of those [barring the clerics of the masked god] but I haven't perused all of them.For a lay person recognizing a cleric by a priest that has religious authority but can't cast spells isn't so automatic.
I believe the issue is that half of you are talking about strict, strict RAW in regards to Pathfinder Society play, and the other half of you are talking about being reasonable in a home game.
In PFS, the GM has no power to overturn RAW. It doesn't matter if it becomes stupid or ridiculous, if it's what it says on the tin.
RAW, it does not say anything about willfully or anything for a druid. So if a druid does X, then Y happens. Dominated or otherwise, the druid is still physically doing X.
Of course, I would never do that in a home game, but the original question was about PFS.
This spell is a level 1 spell, not level 4 or more.
If it can strip someone of most of his class powers for a day it is way overpowered.
First level spells can also kill you. That means you lose your class powers forever.
This spell is a level 1 spell, not level 4 or more.
If it can strip someone of most of his class powers for a day it is way overpowered.
First level spells can also kill you. That means you lose your class powers forever.
But no other 1st level spell applies a penalty that lasts 24 hours. Your ally can wake you up from a sleep spell. Burning hands can rarely do enough damage to kill someone at full HP, especially after 2nd level. Color spray only lasts rounds.
In addition, most first level spells drastically lose their offensive significance in later levels. Heighten, Persistent and Spell Focus could make this dangerous even at later levels (arguably more so, as the druid will be more reliant on his spells and abilities).
By 5th level, most 1st level spells have little to no effect on you. One of the worst being Hideous Laughter, but that allows a save every round.
I find the argument of balance to be disingenuous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But no other 1st level spell applies a penalty that lasts 24 hours. Your ally can wake you up from a sleep spell. Burning hands can rarely do enough damage to kill someone at full HP, especially after 2nd level. Color spray only lasts rounds.
In addition, most first level spells drastically lose their offensive significance in later levels. Heighten, Persistent and Spell Focus could make this dangerous even at later levels (arguably more so, as the druid will be more reliant on his spells and abilities).
By 5th level, most 1st level spells have little to no effect on you. One of the worst being Hideous Laughter, but that allows a save every round.
I find the argument of balance to be disingenuous.
All this spell is doing is bypassing the need for a bluff check.
Silent Image can easily replace this spell by making a metal shield look like a wooden one.
This is the problem with trickery and exploiting weaknesses - it's OP, the same way that Odysseus could take out a cycloptic demigod with lies, wine, and a sharp stick. But that's the hard truth - smart wins, bigtime.
It's not the spell itself, so much as the way it's used. Not sure why you want to crush creativity just because it's effective. I personally see this instance (Beguiling Gift + metal shield = weakened Druid) to be the stuff of classic fairy tales and legends; the magically enchanted and honeyed words of the Bards compel the Druid to lose his senses and don the shield, only to feel the taint (and subsequent powerlessness) of breaking his vows.
This can easily be replaced with a wicked queen, giving a poisoned apple to the only babe in the kingdom hotter than her. This can be replaced with giving a cursed loom to an infant that will kill them with a pinprick. This can be replaced with giving a gold coin to a monk who made a vow of poverty. This can be replaced with giving a porkchop to a rabbi, or a scotch on the rocks to a muslim priest.
If you're really unhappy with it, step out of the Rules Questions board and make it a level X spell instead, and/or go to the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew board and suggest your opinion there.
I believe the issue is that half of you are talking about strict, strict RAW in regards to Pathfinder Society play, and the other half of you are talking about being reasonable in a home game.
In PFS, the GM has no power to overturn RAW. It doesn't matter if it becomes stupid or ridiculous, if it's what it says on the tin.
RAW, it does not say anything about willfully or anything for a druid. So if a druid does X, then Y happens. Dominated or otherwise, the druid is still physically doing X.
Of course, I would never do that in a home game, but the original question was about PFS.
The original question had nothing to do with PFS, and after learning that about PFS, neither will I.
;)
That's the key thing right there. The steel shield is not appropriate for the Druid. And beguiling gift doesn't change that awareness. He might accept the gift, but aside from thanking you and putting it down, he won't do anything with it.The spell say: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question."
'Whatever is appropriate' is just describing the action taken based on what the object is. Donning a shield, drinking a potion, smoking a pipe, etc. Whether it's appropriate for a Druid is irrelevant, donning the shield is what one does with a shield, though.
We often used to carry a spare metal helmet around to jam on the heads of any unsuspecting enemy druids. It's kinda cheese, but an effective way of neutralizing druids with minimal effort! From a flavour point of view the metal armour thing is cool, but as a game mechanic it's way too easy to exploit (especialy if one is a metagaming f**k :P)
LOL! That's just how ridiculous this whole notion sounds to me.
Actually, that is inaccurate. The proper line is, "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features [. . .]"The use of a comma and not a semi-colon is distinctive. A comma links the two pieces together, so that willfully does in fact apply to the second statement. A semi-colon is more disjunctive and would imply that willfully applied to the first portion but not the second.
There is grammatical support for this interpretation.
It is also a common interpretation used by the legal system when interpreting documents.
For that, I would say the writer intent is actually quite clear in that willfully does modify the next portion of the statement as well.
No, that's incorrect.
There are three clauses, and each of them is disjoint from the other two, as clearly shown by the leading word "who" in each separate clause.
Were this a statute or contract, we would interpret "willfully" to modify "commits an evil act", and not "ceases to be lawful good" or "violates the code of conduct".
I remember when this thread was about WHAT the rules said rather than whether or not they SHOULD say it.
Welcome to the internet, is this your first visit?
|
I remember when this thread was about WHAT the rules said rather than whether or not they SHOULD say it.
Looks at original question, looks at header on section thread is in..
Yep. Per the RAW, it would work, assuming that the druid fails a will save vs a 1st level spell. Since this is a high save on a class that is wisdom based, I don't see this happening too often.
That's the key thing right there. The steel shield is not appropriate for the Druid. And beguiling gift doesn't change that awareness. He might accept the gift, but aside from thanking you and putting it down, he won't do anything with it.The spell say: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question."
No, is says appropriate for the item in question, not for the character class in question. So if you hand someone an item that they have no clue how to wear or use, they will still try and do it to the best of their ability. And if they get the ring or helmet or boots or cloak or whatever on before the spell ends, then they are stuck with the consequences, if there are any. The original idea for the use of this spell may be a stretch and not have a good chance of working, but using this spell combined with a cursed item that can be equipped in one round could be quite interesting.
And while this question was originally about using it in PFS play, in a home game where you have access to cursed items, this could be a nasty tactic, both for and against the PCs. Necklace of Strangulation or Helm of Opposite Alignment, anyone? :)
That's the key thing right there. The steel shield is not appropriate for the Druid. And beguiling gift doesn't change that awareness. He might accept the gift, but aside from thanking you and putting it down, he won't do anything with it.The spell say: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question."
As appropriate for the item, not for the character. The Druid would use the shield.